Originally Posted by Deadly Cyclone
The thing that bothers me about your reply here Dax is one I see many many times about Halo. The people that truly love Halo don't ever want to see Halo evolve with the times. Does it need to be like MW3? No, of course, not. It needs to be Halo, but it also needs to be a 2012 first person shooter, not a 2001, or 2004 shooter with a new coat of paint.
Sprint for everyone (if that's how it works) is something I have wanted since 2, because casually walking around a map seems slow and unbecoming of a Spartan.
The perks, well it's just too early to tell because we literally know nothing of them.
I just want to see Halo take some of the good things the FPS genre has created since 2001 and implement them while keeping to the Halo structure. It seems all the negative opinions I usually read on Halo are summarized as "we want Halo 1 HD or Halo 2 HD, not anything new."
More a view overall, and not specifically on what you said, but what you noted brought it to mind.
With all due respect, I think you missed the point of that entire section. I'm not averse to change. I embraced Halo 3's equipment, (on the campaign side, ODST's hubworld) and I was willing to embrace Reach's bloom and AAs and loadouts (look at my post history) until I played it and saw how detrimental the changes were. Halo 3's equipment worked, or worked better than Reach's AAs, because it was worked into Halo's design philosophy – something to fight over. Everyone still started on equal footing, and if you could get to the equipment and survived, you were rewarded. (This is setting aside implementation debate).
Let's talk about Sprint. I've seen this .gif
posted countless times but I've yet to see anyone say anything about what's actually happening in it. One of my dislikes for Sprint is that you can charge at someone and beat them down before they have time to react, or before they have enough time to your shields down. This ends in either the Sprinter winning, or a simultaneous beatdown (which a lot of people in HaloGAF loathe). Now, you're probably asking, "Okay, but if everyone has sprint, the player can just turn around and sprint away before a situation like that happens." To which I say, look at the .gif again. Situations like that will not be rare. The red Spartan didn't have time to react, he didn't have time to turn around, and because the blue Spartan got off the first melee, he'll likely win. All of that is not even asking what happens with a Sprinter and a close-range power weapon. I can't be the only one on this board who gets frustrated in getting killed by a Sprinter with a sword or a shotgun. I used it to great abuse the other day on Reflection.
Now, if we're talking about Sprint as a power weapon to fight over? It would work a lot better that way, I think. Or if it must be a default ability, there are other ways to balance it out. If a player gets shot, make the him stop sprinting, or have the player wait a full second or two when coming out a sprint for certain weapons, or don't allow them to switch weapons while sprinting. Unless/until changes like this are announced, I'll continue to worry and dislike the implementation of the idea.
The idea of "casually walking" isn't something that happens if the base speed is fast enough, and you have assistants like teleporters or mancannons to help with player movement. With all of that, Sprint seems a little superfluous, and comes off as Halo playing catch up, when it was really going around the idea the entire time beforehand.
And that's not even touching what effects Sprint has on campaign.
Look, any changes or anything new introduced will always cause a good deal of skepticism and worry for how they'll play out. With stuff like Sprint and a more evolved form of "loadouts" (from what we've been hearing), I'm drawing upon my experience with Reach as well as baggage that comes with introducing something new. I must admit that at the same time I worry about being, or appearing, unfair, so hopefully I've explained myself well enough.